UGH: Christian B&B must serve gay couples after Supreme Court refuses to hear case

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case against a Hawaiian Bed and Breakfast where the owner refused service to a lesbian couple back in 2007.

Because the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled against Aloha Bed & Breakfast last year, owned by a Catholic woman, that ruling now stands and the owner will now be levied a fine and forced to server gay couples in her B&B.



Here’s more:

REUTERS – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a new dispute involving gay and religious rights, leaving in place a lower court ruling against a Hawaii bed and breakfast owner who turned away a lesbian couple, citing Christian beliefs.

The justices refused to hear an appeal by Phyllis Young, who runs the three-room Aloha Bed & Breakfast in Honolulu, of the ruling that she violated a state anti-discrimination law by refusing to rent a room to Diane Cervilli and Taeko Bufford in 2007.

A state court ruled that Young ran afoul of Hawaii’s public accommodation law, which among other things bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Litigation will now continue to determine what penalty Young might face.

Young said her decision to turn away the same-sex couple was protected by her right to free exercise of religion under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

In the Hawaii case, Cervilli and Bufford sued in 2011 and were joined in the litigation by the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, a state agency. They are no longer a couple.

Young is Catholic and “the only romantic partners allowed to share a bedroom are a married man and woman,” her lawyers said in court papers. Young argued among other things that she could not be sanctioned because private homes that rent fewer than four rooms are exempt from Hawaii’s housing laws. Young appealed to the Supreme Court after the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled against her in 2018.

Reuters points out that because of the narrow decision by the Supreme Court in the Colorado case against Masterpiece Cakeshop, that ruling didn’t cover this case.

They do, however, have a similar appeal regarding an Oregon bakery, but that has yet to be decided.

Perhaps that ruling will be large enough in scope to protect this Christian Bed and Breakfast?

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
newest oldest most voted
RoyceMcCutcheon
Member
Member
RoyceMcCutcheon

Does the B&B turn away unmarried hetero couples? Do they check the marriage status of everyone staying there? Would they deny an atheist couple, married outside the Church? If that’s the case, I’d say they could deny a gay couple a room. But if not, then they’re probably being unreasonable.

Dramamama60
Member
Active Member
Dramamama60

I would shut the doors and refuse still to serve the perverts!

Chow Yun Fatty
Member
Active Member
Chow Yun Fatty

As much as I dislike the gay mafia, I don’t think this holds water. With the bakers, they were refusing to create an item in celebration of their wedding, which to them was an abomination. However, this sounds like a clear cut case of discrimination. Unless they were up all hours of the night scissoring noisily or harassing straight couples, I don’t see a win here.

Dramamama60
Member
Active Member
Dramamama60

Families who spend time there might be offended. I know I would refuse to stay at a B &B that served gays. I would not want my children exposed to their perversion. But she should be allowed to serve who she wants……they can find plenty of places to stay. I call out the gay mafia once again!

Chow Yun Fatty
Member
Active Member
Chow Yun Fatty

I agree, howeverr I’m looking at it legally, not morally. Morally, I think any businesses that doesn’t receive govt. funding or assistance, or is a public service, should be able to serve or refuse anyone they want. But the law doesn’t see it that way.

pybop
Member
Trusted Member
pybop

Chow Yun FattyChow Yun Fatty I completely concur…well stated.

Rocket Matt
Member
Active Member
Rocket Matt

No one said that the service had to be good.

DaYooper
Member
Active Member
DaYooper

So sorry about that darned plugged-up toilet.

Renny
Member
Trusted Member
Renny

Time to ramp up the Christianity in the place. Would it be illegal for her to put up verses on the wall here and there? Just drive them out. They just target. It’s what they do.

Dramamama60
Member
Active Member
Dramamama60

That would be a great idea! Smother them in God’s word!

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Young said her decision to turn away the same-sex couple was protected by her right to free exercise of religion under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

This is a stupid argument. What she should say is that her decision to turn away the couple was protected by her right to contract.

Taurnil
Member
Trusted Member
Taurnil

Well since there are far, far to many people in this country that would rather take a big crap on the Constitution, yes, that would have been a better response. Though it is very sad standing on the Constitution carries so little weight nowadays.

Blackbeard
Member
Member
Blackbeard

But if ye opened a chain o’ Homos ‘R’ Us cot ‘n breakfasts, ye prolly would go out o’ business ’cause nah one queer would wants t’ stay thar. Th’ scallywags jus’ wants t’ stir up trouble.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

I heard that in Colorado a gay baker refused to make a cake with anti-homosexual Bible verses and it was upheld by the Civil Rights Board.

Texas Chris
Member
Trusted Member
Texas Chris

Did she turn away non-married straight couples as well?
Would she have allowed two straight females to share a room/bed?
Does she live on the premises/in the house?

I ask because if she has these sincere beliefs and she’s selectively applying, then she gets what she deserves. But if this is her house, she lives there, and there’s equal application of the rule to all couples, then why the heck is she required to let people she doesn’t want to associate with into her home?

The Gaystapo should take the win and claim the war is over before the inevitable backlash. When good people get enough these activists are going to not like what they get.

Taurnil
Member
Trusted Member
Taurnil

AFAIAC she can be selective.

DinoDoc
Member
Active Member
DinoDoc

If that’s the case and she does indeed allow unmarried couples to rent from her, then she deserves what she got.

Renny
Member
Trusted Member
Renny

Reading is good. “…Young is Catholic and “the only romantic partners allowed to share a bedroom are a married man and woman…”

Taurnil
Member
Trusted Member
Taurnil

It’s her property, her business, she can serve whom she chooses. If she chooses to send away homos, lesbos, unmarried couples, her choice. The real answer is; given what I just said an enterprising person would start a B&B nearby serving those she turns away. Its called capitalism. That’s the correct answer not the hidden presumption you have the authority to decide for her.

Mama Bear Patriot
Member
Member
Mama Bear Patriot

My heart just breaks for the Christian business owners affected by these ridiculous laws – photographers, florists, bakers, wedding planners, B&B owners, etc. We are certainly not free if we are forced to provide our services in situations where our conscience is disturbed. I can’t imagine, for example, being a wedding photographer forced to take photos of a gay couple. Just think of the nature of wedding pictures and all the romantic & intimate shots – kissing, hand-holding, gazing lovingly into each others’ eyes, etc. I would become physically ill if I were required to take such photos of a gay couple. Yet photographers are faced with a difficult choice – take the photos or lose your livelihood.

DinoDoc
Member
Active Member
DinoDoc

That being said unless they wanted to have the a “wedding” at the B&B, I’m not exactly sure what her issue was unless she also refuses to rent to unmarried people as well.

DinoDoc
Member
Active Member
DinoDoc

“refused to rent a room …. in 2007.”

“sued in 2011”

This confuses the hell out of me.

MxnCheeseHead
Member
Active Member
MxnCheeseHead

Agree. I didn’t realize there were nondiscrimination laws for same sex relationships in 2007.

DinoDoc
Member
Active Member
DinoDoc

I’d have also thought the ~4 year lag between “injury” and suit would have mitigated the hurt feelings given the fact they aren’t even seeing each other anymore.

Taurnil
Member
Trusted Member
Taurnil

Did that law exist there then?

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

We are being MADE TO care… Grrr…

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

Admittedly, this is easy for me to say, but I’d close my B&B before I’d allow homosexuals or the damned government tell me what I can and can’t do in this instance.

Taurnil
Member
Trusted Member
Taurnil

Yes it’s easy to say but I think the same.

GolfCartOne
Member
Noble Member
GolfCartOne

Sexual deviancy is destroying our country in many ways. Killing religion, specifically Christianity. Killing families, especially the very important traditional family that includes mothers and fathers. Killing free speech. Those are the big ways. There are many downstream ways, as well.

Chief Judas Roberts is leading the charge.

SheerPolitics
Member
Trusted Member
SheerPolitics

They are getting slammed on Yelp. A couple are being honest about why they’re putting in 1 star ratings, but most are obviously just making things up (dated with today’s date).

Apolitical
Member
Member
Apolitical

This godforsaken country is absolutely toast. This shit is f’ing horrible and proof that the demoralization of western society has been achieved and solidified.

podeincork
Member
Member
podeincork

These two cases are not at all similar.

In the bakery case, the court ruled that the plaintiff cannot be forced to participate in a ceremony that violates his religious principles. By the baker’s own admission, he proudly served gay customers and loved many of then. At no time did he ever claim they did not have a right to shop in his store, nor did he ever deny the obligation to do so.

There is no ceremony involved her. No free speech at risk. This woman doesn’t want to serve lesbians in the normal course of her business establishment. That is pure bigotry and she deserves whatever sanction the law allows.

Kathleen
Member
Active Member
Kathleen

They would be sleeping in her bed & breakfast not just eating breakfast. Just because she does not want to sanction the couple’s overnight stay doesn’t mean she hates them. You have pure bigotry of your own.

Sean
Member
Member
Sean

If her B&B is at or over the number of rooms that make it fall under the Hawaii regulated housing law then I’d say you have a point, but based on her lawyer’s statements that doesn’t appear to be the case. This is akin to telling anyone participating in Air B&B that you have no right to refuse anyone’s request to stay at your house for any reason that might be deemed discriminatory.

jamespubliusmadison
Member
Active Member
jamespubliusmadison

A private business should have the right to refuse service for any reason in a nation predicated on individual liberty. If the government tells you who you must serve, you’re a slave to the government, and just because someone’s passing through town, doesn’t mean they have right to stay at the place of their choosing.

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

I wonder which Justice made the decision not to take it? Hmmmmm

bronx
Member
Active Member
bronx

I have 5 American bucks that it was Roberts.

MME
Member
Active Member
MME

Borrow some beg bugs from some random motel in California…they won’t stay more than a night. HA!!!!..it’s a method.

SheerPolitics
Member
Trusted Member
SheerPolitics

Neither will anyone else….

Pickle Plants
Member
Active Member
Pickle Plants

The bed bugs will.

Truth Unites... and Divides
Member
Member
Truth Unites... and Divides

“A state court ruled that Young ran afoul of Hawaii’s public accommodation law, which among other things bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Suppose a Homosexual Couple wants to have their wedding in an Islamic Mosque in Oahu. Is this Mosque required by Hawaii State Law to host the wedding of these homosexuals?

podeincork
Member
Member
podeincork

Bad example. No religious place of worship is under any obligation to treat its premises as a Denny’s.

But if the couple were Muslims, members of the mosque and the mosque had hosted weddings for other members, then yes, under Hawaii’s law, they would be obligated to host that wedding.

Truth Unites... and Divides
Member
Member
Truth Unites... and Divides

“But if the couple were Muslims, members of the mosque and the mosque had hosted weddings for other members, then yes, under Hawaii’s law, they would be obligated to host that wedding.”

So then let’s say it’s a Christian church. The homosexual couple would have to profess to be Christians and ALSO members of that particular Christian church (supposing that this church hosted weddings for other members), then Hawaii state law mandates that that particular Christian church has to host the homosexual couple’s wedding.

BUT IF that homosexual couple did not profess to be Christians, nor members of that particular Christian church, then that Christian church does not have to host that homosexual couple’s wedding.

Is that correct?

friskycat
Member
Active Member
friskycat

That’s sick.

Colonel Beauregard Sanders III
Member
Active Member
Colonel Beauregard Sanders III

Hmm. The separation between participation in gay marriage versus serving gays has been brought up before in this debate. Businesses can’t discriminate against gays any more than any other customer, but they CAN (or should be able to) discriminate on the basis of support for gay marriage.

So it makes sense that she would have to play host to gay people, but should NOT have to host a gay wedding. Personally I believe businesses should be able to do business with whomever they wish for any reason whatsoever, but I’m not totally against drawing the line at serving the customer versus serving a cause you disagree with.

MxnCheeseHead
Member
Active Member
MxnCheeseHead

Two people with homosexual tendencies eating together is not a sin but sleeping together with intercourse assumed, would be a sinful act in which defendant could feel they are accomadating.

Tough line to hold… but I lean toward the B&B owner on this one. Assuming the article is correct and non married couples were not allowed as well.

Blacula
Member
Member
Blacula

You overlooked one important thing. Since the guests stay overnight and probably have intercourse, there is still a moral aspect to running a B&B that isn’t prevalent in running a restaurant or a gas station. The business owners of the B&B are thus being forced by the government to sanction behavior they disapprove of.

Colonel Beauregard Sanders III
Member
Active Member
Colonel Beauregard Sanders III

Fair point. I think the argument might be that you don’t know what they’re doing in the room at night. I still believe business owners should be free to do business with whoever they want for any reason, but in this case the courts may feel you can’t know whether the undesirable act is taking place unless you invade their privacy. Then again if it’s something they apply to all unmarried couples equally and they don’t believe in gay marriage it becomes quite a knot. A knot easily solved if property rights simply won out.

Back to Top of Comments